For each of the following, determine if you believe marijuana could be lawfully seized if its discovery?
was based on the following…….
A. Using a helicopter, the police fly over your fenced backyard and see it growing in pots on your back patio
B. Standing across the street from your house, the police use binoculars and see it growing inside your sunroom.
C. Aiming a thermal-imaging device at your house, the police find suspicious ” hot spots ” indicating the probable presence of marijuana growing within your home.
D. Using a police dog that has been specially trained to smell marjuana and other illegal drugs, the dog “points” to your breifcase, when……
1. Your walking down the street
2. Your walking through a airport
3. Your breifcase is located in the locked trunk of your car, and you have been stopped for speeding 6 miles per hour over the limit on a major highway
I have to explain why i say yes or no to each of them
a-yes
b-no
c-no
d-yes to all
a,b,c, more than likely are all probable cause.
d, did officer have probable cause to use dog?
If not then no. ie: smell of pot, high drug traffic area etc.
a. yes – marijuana found in the normal course of business
b.yes – mariquana in public view legal for seizure with warrent
c. no – I believe it’s been done but no longer considered legal – I think hot spots or searching and finding them is no longer considered probable cause for search warrent
d.yes – in public a dog point on illegal drugs is considered probable cause for search
A, B, and C all revolve around the same principle, which is why the answers to A & B are yes, while C is no. Basically, you have a certain “right to privacy” but in order to exercise that right you have to make an effort to protect it. If the marijuana can be seen from the public airspace and/or through a window from across the street, you’ve made no effort and can’t claim privacy. Basically the idea is, you can do what you want behind closed doors, but it’s up to you to close them.
D is a bit different, b/c it’s not in your house but rather in a briefcase. It depends a bit on the context. It really depends on whether or not there was a good reason for the dog to have been used in the first place. Of course, the officers have no obligation to restrain the dog. If, as in the first option, you’re just walking down the road, and police officers are walking their dog in the opposite direction, completely by coincidence, and the dog starts to go crazy, well, tough luck, your pot is gone. If, on the other hand, police officers for no good reason just stop you and bring the dog over specifically to smell your briefcase, then that’s a violation of your rights.
As for the second, traveling through an airport in itself kind of abrogates your personal rights; in the context of an airport you have no assumption of a right to privacy. Any and all baggage can legally be checked for safety purposes, and if it can be checked for that then you can’t pre-suppose privacy, and it can be legally examined for any other purpose. As far as the third, it’s just like the first. It really doesn’t matter how fast you’re going; unless there’s probable cause they can’t search your trunk with a dog.
they do all of those here in Missouri, but you left one out.
they also can monitor your utilities to see if you have a power drain at pre-set intervals (from grow lights going on and off on a timer)
what i believe is irrelevant, because the police and dea have done these things and convicted people with these forms of evidence.